07/10/10: J7 publish our Submissions to the 7 July Inquests, a series of documents compiled following Lady Justice Hallett's decision to accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquests.

10/08/10: A new film 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction has been released that places 7/7 in its wider historical and political context, and examines some of the many unanswered questions that still surround 7 July 2005.

16/08/07: Channel 4 News' Darshna Soni blogs about the need for a 7/7 public inquiry and asks how independent or public such an inquiry would be under the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that puts the government in control of 'independent' inquiries - 7/7 and the public inquiry dilemma, formerly titled, "Why it's time for a public inquiry into 7/7"

07/03/07: J7 publish a new article by Professor David MacGregor, 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' an article in which the events of 7/7 are given historical context and examined as potential acts of, 'Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself'.

A 12 year old writes to John Reid

Open letter to Home Secretary, John Reid

The son of a J7 forum member has been researching the events of July 7th and took it upon himself to write a letter to the Home Secretary, John Reid. We asked if we could reproduce the letter here and received the following response:

"I have no problem with you putting the letter on the website and on the forum too. Hopefully other people might be encouraged to put pressure on the government too, so we can force them into giving some answers."

My name is __________ and I am 12 years old. Recently, I have been researching the 7/7 London bombings, because it intrigues me to find out just what happened and what drove these people to do it (if they did commit these terrible crimes). I have been reading the official report and first of all I must say I am definitely not satisfied, and there are several points which you, or whoever wrote this report, have not taken into account.

First of all, there is a matter that I am certain that you are already aware of, thanks to the people who, like me have contacted you and informed you, or your predecessor to this job, Mr. Clarke about it. The fact is that the 7/7 bombers couldn't have left on the 7:40 from Luton (due to the fact that on this day this particular train was cancelled.

The bombers also can't have left on the 7:48 train, either, because they wouldn't have made it on time for the trains that left from Kings Cross (that were bombed).

That leaves anything before the 7:40 train. Unfortunately, that is impossible too. Anything that was before the picture of them on CCTV (at 7:22) at Luton station, is also wiped out (for obvious reasons). That leaves 2 other trains that were scheduled to depart from Luton, and to go on to Kings Cross. It leaves the 7:24, and the 7:30. The 7:24 actually left at 7:25, and this would have been near impossible for the bombers to catch. As your CCTV picture can tell you, the picture was taken at nearly 7:23, which means the bombers had around 2 minutes to get from one side of Luton train station to the other, a distance which is estimated to take about 3 or 4 minutes normally.

This journey would have been made even harder for these men to make, because (as described in your report) they would have been carrying heavy rucksacks too. This leaves the 7:30, which (like many trains these days) left 12 minutes late (7:42). Also, the 7:30 only arrived at 8:39, by which time the trains bombed had left the station. Surely, Mr. Reid, you can understand how improbable your explanation is at this point, though not many politicians actually accept it when they are wrong nowadays.

I have a couple other points that I would like to make.

Secondly, why, after entering through the ticket barriers at 7:15, did they decide to leave the station? They must have left it at some point because they were photographed outside the station on the CCTV picture in the report at 7:22. I find this very unlikely and I think there is either something here that the government is with-holding or that there is something that the government doesn't know.

Next I have included something a little distant from the actual bombings but something I think needs to be investigated. The bus driver on the bus that was bombed by Hasib Hussain was called George Psaradakis. He was of Greek nationality. There are several odd things about his story and how he came to be connected to the bombings. For instance, in an interview he gave for The Times, he claimed that instead of allowing the ambulance men/women who were on the scene of the crime, he walked all of ten miles to Acton Hospital, when there were hospitals that were in fact closer to the scene of crime. He also claimed that he made this distance in one hour or even slightly less, at a highly unlikely speed of 10 miles per hour. Also, why was he a substitute driver on the day, and why couldn't the man/woman who was meant to be driving drive? Why was his bus the only bus in London (on this day) that was diverted from its normal route? I find these facts very interesting and would be interested to investigate his background and day-to-day life for any previous links to either terrorism in general or these men who are suspected of these crimes.

I have one more question about your highly unsatisfactory report. On the seventh page of your report (the section on the response to the attacks), it mentions that by 13th July, police had strong evidence that the accused were responsible for these attacks. Exactly what evidence was this and why can't it be shown to the general public? Or are we not considered worthy to know the truth?

Please realize, Mr. Reid, that I am not attacking you in person and I am sure that you are perfectly capable of doing your job, but this report makes absolutely no sense and all I want to know is the truth of what really happened.

I look forward to reading your reply,which I hope will answer all of my queries, and I also hope that my letter is not discounted or ignored because of my age.